Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 475 (KER)

K. Balachandran v. Mavelikkara Municipality

2003-07-24

A.K.BASHEER

body2003
Judgment :- How are the Standing Committees of a Municipal Council to be constituted and what should be the minimum number in different Standing Committees? 2. Two elected Councilors of Mavelikkara Municipality have raised this question in this Original Petition. They have challenged Ext.P4 resolution passed by the Municipal Council constituting 5 Standing Committees of the Municipality. The following Standing Committees were constituted in the Municipality: Standing Committee for Finance - 4 members (including Chairman) Standing Committee for Development - 5 members Standing Committee for Health - 5 members Standing Committee for Welfare - 3 members Standing Committee for Works - 5 members It is contended by the petitioners that the decision of the Council to fix the number of members in the Standing Committee for Welfare as 3 is arbitrary, illegal and against the provisions contained in Sec. 21 of the Kerala Municipality Act and also the Kerala Municipality (Standing Committee) Rules, 2000 (for short the Rules). Petitioners therefore pray that Ext. P4 resolution passed by the Municipal council on 11.12.2000 to the extent it declares election of members to the different Standing Committees in Mavelikkara Municipality be set aside and declared as illegal. 3. The contention of the petitioners is untenable. Sec.21 of the Kerala Municipality Act (for short, the Act) states that every Standing Committee shall consist of such number of members as may be decided by the Council including is Chairman, and it shall be in such a manner that every Councilor, except the chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson shall be elected as a member of any one of the Standing Committees and the number of members to be elected to each Standing Committee shall, as far as possible, be equal. It is clear from a reading of the above stautory provision that the constitution and number of members of evey Sanding Committee shall be decided by the Council. The number of members to be elected to each standing Committee shall, as far as possible, be equal. 4. It is not in dispute that the meeting of the Municipal Council held on 11-12-2000 was convened in a legal and proper manner and in conformity with the rules and procedure prescribed. Petitioners have also no case that Ext.P4 resolution was not passed in the manner prescribed under law. 4. It is not in dispute that the meeting of the Municipal Council held on 11-12-2000 was convened in a legal and proper manner and in conformity with the rules and procedure prescribed. Petitioners have also no case that Ext.P4 resolution was not passed in the manner prescribed under law. The decision of the Council to fix the number of members is the Welfare Committee as three was strictly in accordance with the statutory provision. The wisdom of the Council to fix the number of Welfare Committee to 3 cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. As mentioned earlier, Sec.21 of the Act only stipulates that the number of members to be elected to the Standing Committee shall, as far as possible, be equal. It does not mean that the number of members of every standing Committee shall be equal under all circumstances. Therefore the challenge against the constitution of the Welfare Standing Committee is without any legal basis. 5. Learned counsel has also invited my attention to Rule 3 of the Rules, which reads as hereunder: "Number of Members in the Standing Committee:--The Council shall in it first meeting convened after its constitution or reconstitution thereof of a Municipality and after the election of its Chairperson, determine under Sec.21, the number of members that each Standing Committee of the Municipality shall have therein." 6. It is evident that discretion if left with the Municipal Council to decide the number of members in the various standing Committee of the Municipality. Nothing in the Rules suggests that the number of members in each of the Standing Committees shall be equal. 7. There is yet another aspect to be taken into consideration. It is admitted by the petitioners that Ext. P4 resolution was passed by the Municipal Council convened meeting. They had also participated in the meeting. Petitioners have not challenged the convening or conduct of the above Council meeting in question. 7. There is yet another aspect to be taken into consideration. It is admitted by the petitioners that Ext. P4 resolution was passed by the Municipal Council convened meeting. They had also participated in the meeting. Petitioners have not challenged the convening or conduct of the above Council meeting in question. Sec.57 of the Act empowers the Government either suo motu or on a reference by the Chairperson, the Secretary or a Councilor of the Municipality or on a petition received from a citizen, cancel or amend a resolution passed or a decision taken by the council, if the resolution or decision; (a) has not been legally passed or taken; or (b) is in excess or abuse of the power conferred by the Act or any other law; or (c) ..... (d) has violated the guidelines issued by the Government in the matter of implementation of plans, schemes or programmes or the conditions of grants. Petitioners have not placed on record any material to show that Ext.P4 resolution suffers from any such vices mentioned in Sec.57. If, in fact, Ext.P4 resolution suffers from any such vice or if the same is vitiated, petitioners ought to have approached the Government by invoking the statutory remedy available under Sec.57 of the Act. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the Original Petition is devoid of any merit and hence it is liable to be dismissed. I do so.